ANSWERS: 23
  • Yes, this way this would diminish drastically second hand smoke, especially for children.
  • No, not really. If your gonna do that then I want all fattening foods made illegal to, along with alcohol. +4
  • No. Thank you.
  • So you can throw tobacco users in jail with the marijuana users? +4
  • No I would like to see people grow some brain cells.
  • Nope, because if you did it would just be imported illegally and who would want to get arrested for smoking/importing tobacco lol!!
  • Don't think it might be good, as haste decisions can't stand for a long long time instead it make ruptures in terms of unemployment, business relation activitives and stock markets. No wonder this tobacco products makes a big crunch in spinning money in all aspects. I think it would be good if we go on step by step and inch closer to where we would like that product to be. My kinda example would be to cut down the production ratio first and ask the manufacturers to diversify to other activities like for e.g. more contrastingly doing good to society like where we would like them to be so that it will make them feel that they are also taking part in doing good and getting themselves placed among the do gooder's as it progresses in future. How's that from my end.
  • It would just be another control "failure", like prohibition was and simply criminalize another huge segment of the population with all the expense and wasted time and money.
  • will never happen, as my religion makes me!!!!
  • No, that wouldn't work very well. +5
  • What and deprive the fools who smoke and chew despite knowing what it's doing to their health? In case you didn't realize it I'm kidding. I can't imagine people from coast to coast all going through withdrawal at once if all tobacco was made illegal. Can you imagine what would happen? I wouldn't want to run into a person that involuntarily had to quit smoking. Talk about road rage then, among other things. People are basically going to do what they do...regardless if it's illegal or not. Smoke cigarettes, smoke marijuana, smoke crack...whatever. Most people know that there "was" a campaign to "not" start smoking in the first place backed by (I believe) R.J. Reynolds(?) courtesy of a lawsuit. I think slapping a diseased lung down in front of first grader's might make more of an impression. The teacher could say, "Now this is what is going to happen to you if you smoke". And maybe throw in a few pictures of people having to lug around oxygen to go along with it. An oxygen tank is not exactly a fashion accessory. Hmmm...just a thought...doesn't our current President smoke? I don't believe I've seen any pictures of that, have you?
  • No. The government should not have to be involved in the personal decisions in life styles of their citizens. People are aware of the consequences. It is futile to try and make illegal something that goes back to our ancestors.
  • Would not be a good idea. +5
  • If we've learned anything from the Eighteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, prohibition does not solve the problem (and there's enough contemporary crime based on illegal substances to begin with)
  • No way live and let live.
  • yes ofcourse
  • Yeah, actually I would like to see it of the shelf. But it they did overnight there would be a lot of angry depressed people due the nicotine withdrawals.
  • No I wouldn't... I would like to see the promotion of health and well-being made ulta legal.
  • not all because its used in alternative quitting products. i use the electronic cig a battery powered vapouriser, it needs nicotine liquid to work. slightly easier to control baccy i think- just tax the hell out of it!
  • No... and I am an ex smoker!, its a choice and should remain so if you smoke or not... I can think of a hell of a lot of other things I would ban first..eg: food colourings, preservatives in food and drink,dogooders sticking their noses in other peoples private lives
  • No. And I'm not a smoker. I just think that we all should be left alone, and left to decide what we want to do with our own lives. Besides which, the funding that smokers contribute in taxes to the NHS over say- 30 years of having the habit, far outweighs the cost of their OWN treatment for smoking related disease later in their lives. People are not ill for years and years with lung cancer now are they? Its a relatively quick death from first diagnosis. I think with education from parents etc, smoking SHOULD be a thing of the past within the next two decades anyway, without the need for an imposed ban (and making potential criminals out of otherwise good people)and a practice reserved for a very small stubborn minority, who of course will not be as readily replaced when they die.
  • Nope. What I WOULD like to see is SMOKERS being held accountable for the consequences of their own habits. The class action lawsuits of the 90's really p*ssed me off when thousands of smokers lied their collective *sses off when they stood up and said "I didn't know smoking was bad for me!" Bullsh*t.
  • I can't help but chuckle a bit whenever I see this sort of question. The short explanation is this: both the states and the federal government collect billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue each year. On top of that, the states are also collecting money from the tobacco lawsuit settlement ($250 billion to be paid over 25 years) and 17 of those states have even borrowed against that money. So yeah, let's make tobacco illegal and cut off those revenue streams for the government. I guarantee they'll find another way to come up with the money and I very much doubt you'd like it. ;)

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy